Lawyerly

GR No. 197813

2013-09-25

PEREZ, J.

Rachel was only ten (10) years old when she witnessed the murder of the victim. She testified in open court two (2) years later. Thus, she cannot be expected to give an error-free narration of the events that happened two years earlier. The alleged inconsistencies between her sworn statement and testimony referred to by appellants do not affect her credibility. What is important is that in all her narrations she consistently and clearly identified appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. Inconsistencies between the sworn statement and the testimony in court do not militate against witness' credibility since sworn statements are generally considered inferior to the testimony in open court.[6]

GR No. 175195

2010-09-15

VIRGILIO BUG-ATAN v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES

DEL CASTILLO, J.

In line with prevailing jurisprudence, we award the fixed amount of P75,000.00 for the death of the victim[39] as civil indemnity ex delicto without any need of proof other than the commission of the crime. An award of moral damages is also in order even though the prosecution did not present any proof of the heirs' emotional suffering apart from the fact of death of the victim, since the emotional wounds from the vicious killing of the victim cannot be denied.[40] The award of P75,000.00 is proper pursuant to established jurisprudence.

GR No. 175605

2009-08-28

PEOPLE v. ARNOLD GARCHITORENA Y CAMBA A.KA. JUNIOR

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.

Hence, we modify the award of civil indemnity by the trial court from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. Likewise the award of P50,000.00 for moral damages is modified and increased to P75,000.00, consistent with recent jurisprudence[31] on heinous crimes where the imposable penalty is death, it is reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to R.A. 9346. The award of moral damages does not require allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs, since the emotional wounds from the vicious killing of the victim cannot be denied.[32] The trial court's award of exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 shall, however, be reduced to P30,000.00, also pursuant to the latest jurisprudence on the matter.[33]

GR No. 148123

2008-06-30

RENE SORIANO v. PEOPLE

VELASCO JR., J.

Moral damages in the same amount should also be awarded to Ferrer. She suffered, as a result of petitioner's criminal act, cerebral lacerations which impaired her learning capabilities, among other serious injuries. The fact that she sustained near fatal wounds for which she was confined for one month in a hospital constituted what we considered in People v. Caraig "the trauma of physical, psychological and moral sufferings on which the award of moral damages x x x could be based." [36] Moral damages can be awarded without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof, her physical suffering being quite obvious.

GR No. 179278

2008-03-28

PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. CHARLIE VILLA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

As to the award of damages, the Court of Appeals correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages. The award of moral damages does not require allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs, since the emotional wounds from the vicious killing of the victim cannot be denied.[39] Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. Based on current jurisprudence, the RTC award of civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000.00 in favor of the heirs of the victim is in order.[40]

GR No. 176385

2008-02-26

PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

The RTC also correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 in view of the violent death of the victim. This does not require allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs.[70] Article 2230 of the Civil Code states that exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, as in this case.[71] To deter future similar transgressions, the Court finds that an award of P25,000.00 for exemplary damages is proper.

GR NO. 176526

2007-08-08

PEOPLE v. JEMUEL TAN

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

Anent the award of damages, we note that the lower court awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P12,000.00 as funeral expenses. However, no receipts were presented to substantiate the claim for funeral expenses hence it must be deleted. It is necessary for a party seeking the award of actual damages to produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award. Only substantiated and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake, or burial of the victim will be recognized in court.[14] Nonetheless, we shall award nominal damages in the amount of P10,000.00 since the heirs of the victim clearly incurred funeral expenses.[15] In addition, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 shall be awarded. Celedonia Dionesio testified on the mental anguish she suffered as a consequence of the death of Jessie.

GR No. 159636

2004-11-25

VICTORY LINER v. ROSALITO GAMMAD

YNARES-SATIAGO, J.

Likewise, in People v. Caraig,[40] damages for loss of earning capacity was not awarded because the circumstances of the 3 deceased did not fall within the recognized exceptions, and except for the testimony of their wives, no documentary proof about their income was presented by the prosecution. Thus

GR No. 148710

2004-01-15

PEOPLE v. JAIME BAÑO

DAVIDE JR., CJ.

We, however, delete the award of actual damages, it appearing that it is supported by a mere list of expenses and not by official receipts.[32] A list of expenses cannot replace receipts when the latter should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions. Neither can the mere testimonies of the victim's siblings, Melecio Bolesa and Cristeta Bolesa Maaño, on the amount they spent suffice. It is necessary for a party seeking an award for actual damages to produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award.[33]

GR No. 126119

2003-10-15

PEOPLE v. PO3 GILDO B. PELOPERO PNP

AZCUNA, J.

Indeed more than two years had elapsed before German and Crispin reported the crime to the authorities. The Court, however, takes judicial notice of the natural reticence of most people to get involved in a criminal case. [21] It is understandable for the witnesses to fear for their safety, especially in this case which implicated a barangay captain and four policemen in the area where the witnesses resided. The involvement of these authorities expectedly caused the witnesses' apprehension and distrust of the police. These factors, and the fact of the witnesses' fear of being implicated for their participation in the burial of the victim, adequately justify the delay in reporting, notwithstanding their non-interaction with appellants after the incident.

GR Nos. 137370-71

2003-09-29

PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARMANDO LOZANO

PUNO, J.

Furthermore, although Mrs. Abiabi testified that her husband earned P8,000.00 monthly as a legal researcher of Clear, Inc., we cannot award indemnity for loss of earning capacity in the absence of documentary evidence.[108] There are only two exceptions to the general rule requiring documentary evidence for claims for damages for loss of earning capacity: (1) if the deceased is self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the victim's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) if the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[109] Clearly, this case does not fall under the exceptions.

GR No. 153781

2003-09-24

PEOPLE v. MATEO GREGORIO Y CARPIO

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.

The Information charged the appellants with conspiracy in killing the victim. Conspiracy must be proved as convincingly as the criminal act itself. Like any element of the offense charged, conspiracy must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[12] Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial evidence; deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated; or inferred from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose and design, a concerted action, and a community of interest.[13]

GR No. 141120

2003-09-17

PEOPLE v. FERNANDO BUENAVIDEZ

CARPIO MORALES, J.

Only expenses supported by receipts and which appear to have actually been expended in connection with the death of the victim should, however, be allowed as bases of the award of actual damages.[29] A list of expenses cannot replace receipts when, as in the case of the things appearing in the itemized list, they should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions,[30] especially given their value of P29,070.00. Hence, the award for actual damages must be reduced to P34,800.00.

GR No. 135029

2003-09-12

PEOPLE v. NESTOR CARRIAGA

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

We hold that the killing of Ernesto was attended by treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[59] Two elements must therefore concur: (1) the means of execution employed gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[60]

	GR No. 197813 2013-09-25	PEOPLE v. EDWIN IBAÑEZ Y ALBANTE PEREZ, J.
Rachel was only ten (10) years old when she witnessed the murder of the victim. She testified in open court two (2) years later. Thus, she cannot be expected to give an error-free narration of the events that happened two years earlier. The alleged inconsistencies between her sworn statement and testimony referred to by appellants do not affect her credibility. What is important is that in all her narrations she consistently and clearly identified appellants as the perpetrators of the crime. Inconsistencies between the sworn statement and the testimony in court do not militate against witness' credibility since sworn statements are generally considered inferior to the testimony in open court.[6]
	GR No. 175195 2010-09-15	VIRGILIO BUG-ATAN v. PEOPLE OF PHILIPPINES DEL CASTILLO, J.
In line with prevailing jurisprudence, we award the fixed amount of P75,000.00 for the death of the victim[39] as civil indemnity ex delicto without any need of proof other than the commission of the crime. An award of moral damages is also in order even though the prosecution did not present any proof of the heirs' emotional suffering apart from the fact of death of the victim, since the emotional wounds from the vicious killing of the victim cannot be denied.[40] The award of P75,000.00 is proper pursuant to established jurisprudence.
	GR No. 175605 2009-08-28	PEOPLE v. ARNOLD GARCHITORENA Y CAMBA A.KA. JUNIOR LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Hence, we modify the award of civil indemnity by the trial court from P50,000.00 to P75,000.00. Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. Likewise the award of P50,000.00 for moral damages is modified and increased to P75,000.00, consistent with recent jurisprudence[31] on heinous crimes where the imposable penalty is death, it is reduced to reclusion perpetua pursuant to R.A. 9346. The award of moral damages does not require allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs, since the emotional wounds from the vicious killing of the victim cannot be denied.[32] The trial court's award of exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 shall, however, be reduced to P30,000.00, also pursuant to the latest jurisprudence on the matter.[33]
	GR No. 148123 2008-06-30	RENE SORIANO v. PEOPLE VELASCO JR., J.
Moral damages in the same amount should also be awarded to Ferrer. She suffered, as a result of petitioner's criminal act, cerebral lacerations which impaired her learning capabilities, among other serious injuries. The fact that she sustained near fatal wounds for which she was confined for one month in a hospital constituted what we considered in People v. Caraig "the trauma of physical, psychological and moral sufferings on which the award of moral damages x x x could be based." [36] Moral damages can be awarded without the need for pleading or proof of the basis thereof, her physical suffering being quite obvious.
	GR No. 179278 2008-03-28	PEOPLE OF PHILIPINES v. CHARLIE VILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
As to the award of damages, the Court of Appeals correctly awarded to the heirs of the victim the amount of P50,000.00 as civil indemnity, P50,000.00 as moral damages and P25,000.00 as temperate damages. The award of moral damages does not require allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs, since the emotional wounds from the vicious killing of the victim cannot be denied.[39] Civil indemnity is mandatory and granted to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the crime. Based on current jurisprudence, the RTC award of civil indemnity ex delicto in the amount of P50,000.00 in favor of the heirs of the victim is in order.[40]
	GR No. 176385 2008-02-26	PEOPLE v. EMELIO TOLENTINO y ESTRELLA and JESUS TRINIDAD y MARAVILLA CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
The RTC also correctly awarded moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 in view of the violent death of the victim. This does not require allegation and proof of the emotional suffering of the heirs.[70] Article 2230 of the Civil Code states that exemplary damages may be imposed when the crime was committed with one or more aggravating circumstances, as in this case.[71] To deter future similar transgressions, the Court finds that an award of P25,000.00 for exemplary damages is proper.
	GR NO. 176526 2007-08-08	PEOPLE v. JEMUEL TAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Anent the award of damages, we note that the lower court awarded P50,000.00 as civil indemnity and P12,000.00 as funeral expenses. However, no receipts were presented to substantiate the claim for funeral expenses hence it must be deleted. It is necessary for a party seeking the award of actual damages to produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award. Only substantiated and proven expenses, or those that appear to have been genuinely incurred in connection with the death, wake, or burial of the victim will be recognized in court.[14] Nonetheless, we shall award nominal damages in the amount of P10,000.00 since the heirs of the victim clearly incurred funeral expenses.[15] In addition, moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00 shall be awarded. Celedonia Dionesio testified on the mental anguish she suffered as a consequence of the death of Jessie.
	GR No. 159636 2004-11-25	VICTORY LINER v. ROSALITO GAMMAD YNARES-SATIAGO, J.
Likewise, in People v. Caraig,[40] damages for loss of earning capacity was not awarded because the circumstances of the 3 deceased did not fall within the recognized exceptions, and except for the testimony of their wives, no documentary proof about their income was presented by the prosecution. Thus
	GR No. 148710 2004-01-15	PEOPLE v. JAIME BAÑO DAVIDE JR., CJ.
We, however, delete the award of actual damages, it appearing that it is supported by a mere list of expenses and not by official receipts.[32] A list of expenses cannot replace receipts when the latter should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions. Neither can the mere testimonies of the victim's siblings, Melecio Bolesa and Cristeta Bolesa Maaño, on the amount they spent suffice. It is necessary for a party seeking an award for actual damages to produce competent proof or the best evidence obtainable to justify such award.[33]
	GR No. 126119 2003-10-15	PEOPLE v. PO3 GILDO B. PELOPERO PNP AZCUNA, J.
Indeed more than two years had elapsed before German and Crispin reported the crime to the authorities. The Court, however, takes judicial notice of the natural reticence of most people to get involved in a criminal case. [21] It is understandable for the witnesses to fear for their safety, especially in this case which implicated a barangay captain and four policemen in the area where the witnesses resided. The involvement of these authorities expectedly caused the witnesses' apprehension and distrust of the police. These factors, and the fact of the witnesses' fear of being implicated for their participation in the burial of the victim, adequately justify the delay in reporting, notwithstanding their non-interaction with appellants after the incident.
	GR Nos. 137370-71 2003-09-29	PEOPLE v. SPO1 ARMANDO LOZANO PUNO, J.
Furthermore, although Mrs. Abiabi testified that her husband earned P8,000.00 monthly as a legal researcher of Clear, Inc., we cannot award indemnity for loss of earning capacity in the absence of documentary evidence.[108] There are only two exceptions to the general rule requiring documentary evidence for claims for damages for loss of earning capacity: (1) if the deceased is self-employed earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the victim's line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) if the deceased is employed as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.[109] Clearly, this case does not fall under the exceptions.
	GR No. 153781 2003-09-24	PEOPLE v. MATEO GREGORIO Y CARPIO YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
The Information charged the appellants with conspiracy in killing the victim. Conspiracy must be proved as convincingly as the criminal act itself. Like any element of the offense charged, conspiracy must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.[12] Conspiracy may be shown through circumstantial evidence; deduced from the mode and manner in which the offense was perpetrated; or inferred from the acts of the accused pointing to a joint purpose and design, a concerted action, and a community of interest.[13]
	GR No. 141120 2003-09-17	PEOPLE v. FERNANDO BUENAVIDEZ CARPIO MORALES, J.
Only expenses supported by receipts and which appear to have actually been expended in connection with the death of the victim should, however, be allowed as bases of the award of actual damages.[29] A list of expenses cannot replace receipts when, as in the case of the things appearing in the itemized list, they should have been issued as a matter of course in business transactions,[30] especially given their value of P29,070.00. Hence, the award for actual damages must be reduced to P34,800.00.
	GR No. 135029 2003-09-12	PEOPLE v. NESTOR CARRIAGA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
We hold that the killing of Ernesto was attended by treachery. There is treachery when the offender commits any of the crimes against person, employing means, methods, or forms in the execution thereof which tend directly and especially to ensure its execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the offended party might make.[59] Two elements must therefore concur: (1) the means of execution employed gives the person attacked no opportunity to defend himself or retaliate; and (2) the means of execution was deliberately or consciously adopted.[60]

PEOPLE v. DONATO CARAIG